Gaddafi was a tyrant, Libya Was Not Regime Change

Gaddafi was a tyrant, Libya Was Not Regime

This article was written by writer was staff director of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for John Kerry apperently defending the Libyan regime desperately by claiming that it was not a regime change but a mission to protect the poor Islamist Eastern Libyans.

Intervention in Libya was a NATO operation and supported by the United Nations. Gaddafi was threatening his own people. Allies in the Middle East and Europe asked for help. The mission was to protect the Libyan people, not regime change. Most important, Gaddafi, who was President Ronald Reagan’s bête noire,

was directly responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103, in which 270 people were killed, including 189 Americans, many of whom were college students going home for Christmas. This was only one reprehensible act committed by Gaddafi.

And, by the way, Libyan rebels, not the U.S. military, killed Gaddafi

A very weak interventionist revisionism. If we listen and believe to the author of this article then we would be agreeing that Iraqi invasion was not a invasion but liberation.

Whether Gaddafi was a tyrant or not isn't really the issue here.

I think the author of the article should look at the state of the country. Are the people living there better or worse off? I'd say they are worse off. Of course nobody knew that Gaddafi was reaching out trying to cut a deal because he was afraid of the jihadist in his country causing trouble.

As it turned out he was correct. He basically surrendered and we helped violently overthrow him.

Gaddafi was a threat to the bankers

originally posted by: TaleDawn
Gaddafi was a tyrant, Libya Was Not Regime

This article was written by writer was staff director of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for John Kerry apperently defending the Libyan regime desperately by claiming that it was not a regime change but a mission to protect the poor Islamist Eastern Libyans.

Intervention in Libya was a NATO operation and supported by the United Nations. Gaddafi was threatening his own people. Allies in the Middle East and Europe asked for help. The mission was to protect the Libyan people, not regime change. Most important, Gaddafi, who was President Ronald Reagan’s bête noire,

was directly responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103, in which 270 people were killed, including 189 Americans, many of whom were college students going home for Christmas. This was only one reprehensible act committed by Gaddafi.

Kerry and Obama and Hillary lied...Qaddafi had turned into one of the best mid East friends of the U.S...He gave up his nuclear weapons ambition...He was eliminating terrorists and helping the US with intelligence...He was the equivalent of Egypt's Mubarak...

The current Washing regime had Qaddafi killed and Mubarak removed from office so they could get the terrorist organization, the Muzlim Brotherhood installed...The Muzlim Brotherhood is the head of the beast that created ISIS, al qaeda, Hamas, and every terrorist group out there...Fortunately for Egypt, they got rid of the terrorist Muzlim Brotherhood...

He was setting up for a gold backed currency

a reply to: gpols

Unlike the puppet leaders and the UN backed gov who are ruining Libya now the difference between west and Gaddafi is that Gaddafi knew how the Black markets operated in his country and knew the limits of how they traded.


Without the Gaddafi family checking the black markets the black markets have no control over them, even with the overflow of the migrants from Libya to Europe is to much for the black markets.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: TaleDawn
Gaddafi was a tyrant, Libya Was Not Regime

This article was written by writer was staff director of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee for John Kerry apperently defending the Libyan regime desperately by claiming that it was not a regime change but a mission to protect the poor Islamist Eastern Libyans.

Intervention in Libya was a NATO operation and supported by the United Nations. Gaddafi was threatening his own people. Allies in the Middle East and Europe asked for help. The mission was to protect the Libyan people, not regime change. Most important, Gaddafi, who was President Ronald Reagan’s bête noire,

was directly responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103, in which 270 people were killed, including 189 Americans, many of whom were college students going home for Christmas. This was only one reprehensible act committed by Gaddafi.

Kerry and Obama and Hillary lied...Qaddafi had turned into one of the best mid East friends of the U.S...He gave up his nuclear weapons ambition...He was eliminating terrorists and helping the US with intelligence...He was the equivalent of Egypt's Mubarak...

The current Washing regime had Qaddafi killed and Mubarak removed from office so they could get the terrorist organization, the Muzlim Brotherhood installed...The Muzlim Brotherhood is the head of the beast that created ISIS, al qaeda, Hamas, and every terrorist group out there...Fortunately for Egypt, they got rid of the terrorist Muzlim Brotherhood...

Amen and Amen. Then marched those mercenary killers right to Syria.

Gaddafi was neither saint nor tyrant. He was an opportunist. Libya was great for a small portion of Libya. Libya was not the bastion of freedom and independence so many try to mistake it as. It was very secular, with one dictator...Gaddafi.

You do not amass a wealth of 200 billion dollars USD without being somewhat a bad guy.

The Dinar never stood a chance, that isn't the reason Gaddafi was outed, and it was mainly French intervention that did it. The US actually took a backseat ride in all that.

Is this guy part of the same group of politicians that think it's a good idea to arm Ukrainians against Russia?

a reply to: onequestion

Honestly, I'm indifferent on that one. Russia is overtly invading Ukraine, and saying they aren't.

a reply to: Iscool

Well hillary said they could vote for the first time in 40yrs.

I suppose that's worth something for the 4 deaths that didn't happen.

a reply to: Vector99

NATO... France, UK, eh what's the difference between all of it we were right there helping set up a No Fly Zone. Also doesn't negate the fact Gaddafi offered to change the country into a democracy.

Sure maybe rigged elections, and him continue to hold power. But the country wouldn't be over run with jihadist that way either.

a reply to: gpols

Gaddafi barely had control over the sections of Libya he had supporters in. It was already a mess. The French called for the strikes. The UN and NATO agreed.

It was already a mess in that country, and yes of course western intervention didn't help, but in this case it really didn't hurt an already broken situation.

Gaddafi had the money to literally buy anything from Russia. It actually is better he was removed.

a reply to: Vector99

I'm sure the CIA had a hand in destabilizing the country to that point. He knew what was going on.

Hindsight being 20/20 it's really hard to see how it was a good move.

It's no secret Libya was also apart of the Arab Spring.

a reply to: gpols

It's easy to blame the CIA for everything. Libya and Gaddafi were never a threat to world currency. He wasn't ousted for that reason.

He WAS a dictator. He wasn't a good guy. Don't let fairy-tale stories of Libya fool you. It wasn't rainbows and unicorns in Libya under Gaddafi, and it wasn't going to be any time soon.

a reply to: Vector99

It actually is better he was removed.

Its the opposite of that. It is not better that he was removed and like everyone who has being following the conflict. Gaddafi wanted the gold Dinar and that is what destroyed Gaddafi. Gaddafi didn't expect an protest which Syria/Assad already knew about the protests and the uprising.


Source

Charlie Rose, March 28: French author and philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy on Libya, his role in the country's revolution and France's role in the
region.

Bernard-Henri Levy was the one responsible for the drive and push for the intervention his a jew.

France Empire

a reply to: Vector99

The Arab Spring was very much a covert operation.

I'm not saying it was all rainbows and butterflies, but before the Intelligence Dept. backed rebels came for Gaddafi Libya was at least stable. Now it's a Radical Islamist Breading Ground and will be for a long time.

a reply to: TaleDawn

That is a fantastical storyline. It's not factual though. Gaddafi could not have created the dinar because he never fully controlled all of Libya.

a reply to: gpols

It was the same thing before Gaddafi was ousted.

Is it BETTER?

Well that's a really good question I still can't answer. But with certainty I can say it isn't worse.